The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Orders reserved on plea against Presidential notification for Bench

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 16, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Orders reserved on plea against Presidential notification for Bench

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, JULY 15. The Madras High Court today reserved orders on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the July 6 Presidential notification for formation of a Permanent Bench in Madurai.

The First Bench, comprising the Chief Justice B. Subhashan Reddy and Justice Prabha Sridevan, reserved orders after hearing senior counsel T.R. Rajagopalan, G. Rajagopal and K. Chandru, and advocates N.G.R. Prasad, R. Vaigai and S.R. Rajagopal, besides the Additional Solicitor-General of India, V.T. Gopalan, and the Additional Advocate-General, R. Muthukumaraswamy.

While two more petitions, including one by advocate D. Selvam, were filed today questioning the constitutional validity of the proposed Bench, the Madurai Bar Association and the Madurai district unit of the All-India Lawyers Union, impleaded themselves as parties in support of the notification.

The Centre's counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, P. Wilson, said the petitioner-advocates had no locus standi to file the petitions as "they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved" by the notification. "The pecuniary interest as advocates and the possible losses that they may suffer on account of the constitution of the Bench cannot override the larger interests of the general public."

It was also submitted that Madras was "construed to be a new State, along with all other States which had undergone reorganisation, by the Supreme Court, which said, "creation of 14 new States by part 2 of the States Reorganisation Act on linguistic basis virtually led to the redrawing of the political map of India as whole."

In his arguments, Mr. Chandru said Madras was a new State as it was created with Tamil areas pursuant to a policy decision to create States on a linguistic basis. "It would be incongruous to call Bombay a new State and Madras an existing State. Only when Section 51(2) of the Act was invoked did the consultative process involving the State Government and the Chief Justice take place." Madras was a State formed under the provisions of Part II of the Act and would thus be a new State within the meaning of the Act, he said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu